The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DEVONTE B. HARRIS, Case No. 1:21-cv-00818-KES-CDB (PC)
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
13 v. INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
14 D. ARDEN, et al., (Doc. 54)
15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
16
17 Plaintiff Devonte B. Harris is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action.
18 This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants
19 Arden, Gamboa, Garcia, Pasillas and Perez, and First Amendment retaliation claims against
20 Defendants Arden, Gamboa, Garcia and Pasillas.
21 I. INTRODUCTION
22 On March 9, 2026, Plaintiff filed his “Motion for an Injunction Ordering Kern Valley
23 State Prison to Provide Access to his Stored Legal Materials.” (Doc. 54.) In that motion, Plaintiff
24 contends that since his transfer to Kern Valley State Prison, he has been permitted seven cubic
25 feet in his cell within which to store legal materials. Four of Plaintiff’s nine boxes of legal
26 materials are stored in his cell; the remaining boxes are stored elsewhere in the facility. Plaintiff
27 states he is entitled to access the materials “once per week on a box-for-box exchange basis,” but
1 have “a pressing need” for previous access, but now that the previously imposed stay has been
2 lifted, he needs access. (Id. at 2.) He states he is unable to effectively litigate this case without the
3 materials. (Id.) Further, asserting that critical and exigent circumstances exist, Plaintiff contends
4 “the presiding judge has set a ‘firm’ trial date” and thus he needs access “to all the documents
5 related to this case to prepare and present evidence.” (Id. at 3.) Citing to the All Writs Act,
6 Plaintiff asserts he has a constitutional right to access the courts and that he “has established and
7 [sic] indisputable legal rights which KVSP staff are violating and injunctive relief is necessary to
8 rectify this.” (Id.)
9 The Court finds a response by Defendants is unnecessary.
10 II. DISCUSSION
11 Applicable Legal Standards
12 Under the All Writs Act, federal courts “may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in
13 aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U.S.C.
14 § 1651(a). “The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons
15 who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to
16 frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice, and
17 encompasses even those who have not taken any affirmative action to hinder justice.” United
18 States v. New York Tel. Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174 (1977) (footnote & citations omitted).
19 “Thus, use of the All Writs Act is appropriate in prisoner civil rights cases where non-
20 party correctional officials are impeding the prisoner-plaintiff’s ability to litigate his pending
21 action.” Hammler v. Haas, No. 2:15-CV-2266 JAM AC P, 2019 WL 11880444, at *2 (E.D. Cal.
22 Mar. 22, 2019); see Lopez v. Cook, No. 2:03-CV-1605 KJM DAD, 2014 WL 1488518, at *2-4
23 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 15, 2014) (issuing an order under the All Writs Act requiring prison officials to
24 provide Plaintiff, who was in the Segregated Housing Unit for non-disciplinary reasons, with two
25 contact visits with his counsel). However, “injunctive relief under the All Writs Act is to be used
26 sparingly and only in the most critical and exigent circumstances,” and only “if the legal rights at
27 issue are indisputably clear.” Brown v. Gilmore, 533 U.S. 1301, 1303 (2001) (citations & internal
1 Analysis
2 First, the Court observes that Kern Valley State Prison (KVSP) and its officials or
3 employees are not parties to this action. Plaintiff’s claims involve correctional staff employed at
4 California State Prison, Corcoran.
5 Next, the Court notes Plaintiff’s assertion that “the presiding judge has set a ‘firm’ trial
6 date” necessitating his access “to all the documents related to this case to prepare and present
7 evidence” is erroneous. This action has not been set for trial. In fact, the scheduling order was
8 issued less than two months ago and the deadline for the completion of discovery is set for
9 September 29, 2026. (See Doc. 50.)1
10 Further, although Plaintiff asserts KVSP officials have denied him access to his materials
11 for “well over a year,” the Court is aware that Plaintiff has previously “acknowledge[d] that he
12 ‘did finally get to access his legal property’” while housed at KVSP. See Harris v. Coleman, No.
13 1:20-cv-00759-KES-SKO (PC), 2024 WL 4556760, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2024).2 Notably too,
14 while asserting he is entitled to access his legal materials, it is unclear whether Plaintiff has
15 specifically requested access via a “box-for-box exchange.” He offers no details concerning the
16 date or dates he requested such access and offers no documentation in support of his motion. See,
17 e.g., Villery v. Jones, No. 1:15-cv-1360-DAD-HBK, 2021 WL 5587638, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30,
18 2021) (denying request for order under All Writs Act and noting “Plaintiff does not provide a
19 single inmate grievance or inmate form submitted to prison officials requesting copies be made of
20 his responses in opposition or requesting access to the law library to make such copies. … Nor
21 does Plaintiff provide written forms from correctional officials denying his requests for copies or
22 library access”).3 For those reasons, the Court cannot conclude there exist critical or exigent
23 circumstances warranting the relief requested. Other than vague and conclusory assertions that he
24
1 This matter is set for a settlement conference on April 16, 2026, before Magistrate Judge Jeremy D. Peterson. (See
25 Doc. 51.)
26 2 United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“[A] court may take judicial notice of its own records in
other cases”).
27
3 The Court queried its CM/ECF system and found that Plaintiff has three other actions pending in this division: 1:21-
1 is unable to effectively litigate this case without his legal materials, the information provided is
2 insufficient to conclude that KVSP officials are “impeding the prisoner-plaintiff's ability to
3 litigate his pending action.” Hammler, 2019 WL 11880444, at *2.
4 Finally, to the extent Plaintiff declares that he intends to move to file an amended
5 complaint (see Doc. 54 at 1 [“I now have present and complete causes of action for federal
6 malicious prosecution and deliberate fabrication of evidence” and “intend to amend my complaint
7 to state these claims”]), the Court notes that the deadline for filing amended pleadings is April 29,
8 2026 (see Doc. 50). Plaintiff may elect to resubmit his motion for injunctive relief with more
9 detailed information and supporting documentation prior to that deadline.4
10 In sum, as discussed above, Plaintiff has not shown the presence of critical and exigent
11 circumstances justifying the sparing use of injunctive relief permitted under the All Writs Act.
12 Brown, 533 U.S. at 1303.
13 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
14 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for an
15 injunction (Doc. 54) be DENIED.
16 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
17 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
18 after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written
19 objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to
20 Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without
21 leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the
22 Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the
23 exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise
24 reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may be
25 disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations under 28
26 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time
27
4
1 | may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th
2 | Cir. 2014).
3 | ITIS SOORDERED.
* | Dated: _ March 11, 2026 | hrnnrD bo
5 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28